Further calls have been made for the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) to recognise the current education of financial advisers, with the FPA claiming the standards setting body has overlooked past-training relevant to the provision of advice.
In its response to a submission paper released by FASEA (see: Advisers Can Meet Education Standard in One Year: FASEA), the FPA recommended a reduction in the number of existing adviser categories, based on degree types, from the five to three.
The five categories listed in the FASEA proposal include:
- adviser with no degree
- adviser with unrelated degree
- adviser with related degree
- adviser with related degree and related post graduate qualification
- adviser with approved degree
While the FPA has recommended the following categories
- adviser with no degree
- adviser with any degree
- adviser with financial planning degree (at AQF7 level or above)
Under this model, all advisers would be required to be members of a code monitoring body by 2019, pass the FASEA exam by 2021 and comply with the FASEA Code of Ethics by 2024.
“…the current FASEA education proposal appears to overlook existing advisers’ past education that is specific to the provision of financial advice…”
Only advisers with no degree will be required to gain an approved degree, graduate diploma or masters qualification by 2024 while advisers with any degree will be compliant if they hold a graduate diploma, CFP certification or the eight unit Diploma of Financial Planning by 2024.
The FPA stated this model would recognise past and relevant financial advice specific education that was higher than the minimum RG146 standard as well as the study taken to gain financial advice certifications, including the CFP designation.
FPA Chief Executive, Dante De Gori said the FPA submission “…will address the complexity of the proposed framework and create a more practical and workable approach that simplifies the education pathways for all advisers”.
“As the current FASEA education proposal appears to overlook existing advisers’ past education that is specific to the provision of financial advice, we are strongly advocating for the framework to recognise quality, advice-specific education, such as the CFP Certification Program,” De Gori said.
He said research conducted by the FPA among its members found that 64 per cent held an undergraduate or post-graduate university degree but 84 per cent of those with a ‘non-related’ degree were not comfortable with the FASEA proposal, and believed their time and financial commitment has not been recognised by FASEA.
At the same time, 78 per cent of advisers with the CFP designation were not comfortable with the proposals and considered they already had the skills and qualifications to be considered compliant under new education proposals.
“A key responsibility in setting the new requirements is to ensure the financial planning profession remains sustainable so that advisers can continue to serve their clients in a practical and positive way,” De Gori said.
“Our research shows that the existing FASEA proposed education pathways will likely result in the departure of a large number of appropriately qualified financial planners from the profession,” he added.
Experienced advisers who only do Life Insurance advice, have said for years that there will be a mass exodus if the Industry associations, Regulators and all other Interested parties do not start to listen to common sense and separate Life advise from Investment advise, as the ongoing education does not correlate with what Life advisers do.
As usual, no one listened and yet the FPA seems shocked that nearly 7 in 10 experienced advisers will walk away, which will be a financial disaster for all Australians.
Experience is not learned in a book, though experience gained and passed on, can be the difference between taking the right path, or turning down the path to long term financial and emotional misery.
FASEA is a one dimensional sphere that if enacted in it’s current format, will cost Australia Multi billions of dollars that our country and our people can not afford.
The sad truth though, is that Politicians are so institutionalized and brainwashed, that they believe they know what is best, though do not have the experience to see Bull–it when it is right in front of their face.
OVER LOOKED ????? Did they look at all ?
Again!!! Unbelievable!!! An article where only “advisers” are talked about. Where on earth is anyone, except the wonderful Jeremy Wright here in the comments, talking about the distinction and separate qualification for RISK ADVISERS. Again for these industry entities: **RRIISSKK** advisers. Is double capitals and a few asterix saying it loudly enough for these ‘entities’ to hear?
.
We DO NOT need the same quals as “advisers” – we do a totally different thing for a client. Different discipline!! When on God’s blue and green earth will these regulators – FASEA, FPA, ASIC et al get it through their thick self interested heads?! WHERE ARE THE LIFE COMPANIES IN THIS CONVERSATION ? One would think it a no-brainer that they would be involved – at the forefront in fact – CRICKETS~~!!
FPA once again helping advisers OUT of the industry. I do not believe the FPA has worked for anyone else other than their own empire for many years. FPA sold out advisers with opt-in and doing it again if you risk advisers.
C’mon FPA and Life companies – get with the plot . . . create a separate qualification for risk advisers and show that you understand the difference in how they relate to and assist clients. One would think the FPA and the life companies would indeed know the difference between and life adviser and an investment adviser . . it appears they may not OR they choose not to notice – either way they should have a good look at themselves. THEN they should look at what an adviser in life insurance does and then they should look at what an adviser in investments does. This is just a suggestion, one that should have been enacted many decades ago in any thinking person’s view. What are you waiting for FPA – Life companies? What?
FPA is willing to fight for recognition of CFP for someone who has done a degree in Archeology or Marine Biology, but for me, without a degree but who has studied and passed 5 units of CFP and 8 units of DFP and with almost 20 years of advising, they are casting aside? I’ve done as much FP study as the guy with the utterly unrelated piece of paper.
Comments are closed.